apreq-2

[Eli Marmor <ma...@netmask.it>]

I'm a newbie here, and haven't had time to lurk before jumping into the
deep water, so please excuse me in advance  if it's a FAQ or a silly
question (it is, I know...):

Is the API of apreq-2 stable?

Can I use it?
(it's not for production, but I don't want to have to change my calls
again and again...)

I know that there are always surprises and unexpected things, so if you
THINK that the API is stable but are not SURE, don't hesitate to tell
me that at least in your opinion it's stable.

By the way: currently it is delivered as a patch to the base code;
Since the base code is dynamic, doesn't it make sense to ship it as a
TGZ file rather than as a PATCH file?

I wish you (and me) that the core developers of httpd will agree to
include it in the standard source tree (at least as "experimental");
this is its place!

Thanks,
-- 
Eli Marmor
marmor@netmask.it
CTO, Founder
Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
__________________________________________________________
Tel.:   +972-9-766-1020          8 Yad-Harutzim St.
Fax.:   +972-9-766-1314          P.O.B. 7004
Mobile: +972-50-23-7338          Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel

Re: apreq-2

[Eli Marmor <ma...@netmask.it>]

Joe Schaefer wrote:

> The dev@httpd feedback we got was IMO lukewarm about incorporating that
> patch into the httpd distribution.  They'd be far more excited about a
> filter-based implementation, and the general consensus on apreq-dev
> was to follow that recommendation.  For more info, consult the August &
> September 2002 list archives at
> 
>   http://httpd.apache.org/mail/apreq-dev/

I remember that thread (though didn't follow/read it).

By the way, it will be really great to integrate the mechanism of input
filters with apreq. Moreover, it was my opinion even before Aug.-Sep.

On the other hand, if it delays the official release, then it isn't so
great anymore. And maybe even should be given out (I don't have a clear
opinion).

> > I wish you (and me) that the core developers of httpd will agree to
> > include it in the standard source tree (at least as "experimental");
> > this is its place!
> 
> That's the plan.  If you'd like to help out, stay tuned
> to the list :-).

I do.

-- 
Eli Marmor
marmor@netmask.it
CTO, Founder
Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
__________________________________________________________
Tel.:   +972-9-766-1020          8 Yad-Harutzim St.
Fax.:   +972-9-766-1314          P.O.B. 7004
Mobile: +972-50-23-7338          Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel

Re: apreq-2

[Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>]

Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Eli Marmor <ma...@netmask.it> writes:

[...]

>>I wish you (and me) that the core developers of httpd will agree to
>>include it in the standard source tree (at least as "experimental");
>>this is its place!
> 
> 
> That's the plan.  If you'd like to help out, stay tuned 
> to the list :-).

Or, even better, help to convince the httpd-dev crowd that having apreq in the 
httpd-core is a goodness.

__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/     mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org   http://ticketmaster.com

Re: apreq-2

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>]

Eli Marmor <ma...@netmask.it> writes:

> Is the API of apreq-2 stable?

No.

> Can I use it?
> (it's not for production, but I don't want to have to change my calls
> again and again...)

The patch shouldn't be construed as anything other than alpha software.
It was made available primarily to solicit feedback from dev@httpd,
other apreq developers, as well as potential users of apreq-2 to-be.  
It was not meant to serve as a pre-release of apreq-2, and I plan to 
remove that patch soonish.

The dev@httpd feedback we got was IMO lukewarm about incorporating that
patch into the httpd distribution.  They'd be far more excited about a
filter-based implementation, and the general consensus on apreq-dev
was to follow that recommendation.  For more info, consult the August & 
September 2002 list archives at 

  http://httpd.apache.org/mail/apreq-dev/

> I know that there are always surprises and unexpected things, so if you
> THINK that the API is stable but are not SURE, don't hesitate to tell
> me that at least in your opinion it's stable.

Sorry, it's not stable at all.  It may turn out that we don't 
change much of the API, and we hope to avoid any major changes 
to it.  But I can't promise you anything about how apreq-2 will 
turn out.

> I wish you (and me) that the core developers of httpd will agree to
> include it in the standard source tree (at least as "experimental");
> this is its place!

That's the plan.  If you'd like to help out, stay tuned 
to the list :-).

-- 
Joe Schaefer